Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide?

[Goober]

Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide

What are your thoughts on thisDoes it breech a person's religious rights under the CharterAre you for or against thisBC Supreme Court will render a decision - Either way a decision will be appealed to the SCOCIf the SCOC rules in favor of the right to Practice Polygamy -

Do you think that the Not Withstanding Clause be invoked?


http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/20/court-to-decide-if-polygamy-laws-conflict-with-rights-charter/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-court-to-decide-whether-polygamy-is-a-protected-religious-practice/article1807806/

 

[Machjo]

Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide

What are your thoughts on thisDoes it breech a person's religious rights under the CharterAre you for or against thisBC Supreme Court will render a decision - Either way a decision will be appealed to the SCOCIf the SCOC rules in favor of the right to Practice Polygamy -

Do you think that the Not Withstanding Clause be invoked?


http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/20/court-to-decide-if-polygamy-laws-conflict-with-rights-charter/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-court-to-decide-whether-polygamy-is-a-protected-religious-practice/article1807806/

As for freedom of religion, while there are religions that have no rule against polygamy, I'm unaware of any religion that ordains polygamy as an obligation on its followers. Ergo, prohibiting poligamous marriages in no way conflics with any religious pracice that I know of.

Now, as for Canadians engaging in a polygamous marriage abroad and then bringing their wives back to Canada, that's a tough one to answer. On the one hand, I do see polygamy as being harmful to society. Inversely, I also see the breaking up of a family, with or without children, to be equally harmful. Looking at it that way, to forcefully break up a polygamous marriage entered into frely by all parties concerned mrely adds harm to harm.

While I can see Canada banning polygamous mariage on its soil, I can also see a cse for Canada recognizing legal polygamous marriages engaged in by Canadian citizens on foreign soil. I would add to that though that Canada should also work with other countries to establish agrements that those other countries will refuse to marry Canadian citiens into polygamous marriages on their soil so as to avoid the problem of habing to break marriages apart later. This however would require some international diplomacy. The hope of course would be that while Canada would legally recognie marriages entered into abroad, that based on established agreements with Canada, no country would grant a polygamous marriage license to any Canadian in the first place.

 

[gerryh]

I think the government and society should stay the hell out of other peoples bedroom.

 

[Goober]

As for freedom of religion, while there are religions that have no rule against polygamy, I'm unaware of any religion that ordains polygamy as an obligation on its followers. Ergo, prohibiting poligamous marriages in no way conflics with any religious pracice that I know of.

Now, as for Canadians engaging in a polygamous marriage abroad and then bringing their wives back to Canada, that's a tough one to answer. On the one hand, I do see polygamy as being harmful to society. Inversely, I also see the breaking up of a family, with or without children, to be equally harmful. Looking at it that way, to forcefully break up a polygamous marriage entered into frely by all parties concerned mrely adds harm to harm.

While I can see Canada banning polygamous mariage on its soil, I can also see a cse for Canada recognizing legal polygamous marriages engaged in by Canadian citizens on foreign soil. I would add to that though that Canada should also work with other countries to establish agrements that those other countries will refuse to marry Canadian citiens into polygamous marriages on their soil so as to avoid the problem of habing to break marriages apart later. This however would require some international diplomacy. The hope of course would be that while Canada would legally recognie marriages entered into abroad, that based on established agreements with Canada, no country would grant a polygamous marriage license to any Canadian in the first place.

The Muslim Religion allows up to 4 wives but only if you can support them. And not the Govts such as in the UK 7 Canada presently do.

The case for Canadian Citizens engaging in polygamy on foreign soil then having it recognized in Canada is not credible - Reason people would go to such countries that permit it then they could return to Canada - It is one or the other - Permitted or Not

Think of the Immigration conundrum - Married - then marries 3 wives from his country of origin - they are then granted Citizenship - He then divorces 3 of them - They then marry again from their country of origin - He the person they marry then is granted citizenship - he then marries 3 more from his country of origin. Think on that one - And it would all be legal.

As to agreements - You would want other countries to Recognize Canadian Law - Now that would not fly very well in those countries.

 

[Machjo]

The Muslim Religion allows up to 4 wives but only if you can support them. And not the Govts such as in the UK 7 Canada presently do.

Actually, there is debate on that. IN the Qur'an we read:

"And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans, then, of other women who seem good in your eyes, marry but two, or three, or four; and if ye still fear that ye shall not act equitably, then one only..."
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 4 - Women)


Yet in the same Surah we also read a little further down:

"And ye will not have it at all in your power to treat your wives alike, even though you fain would do so; but yield not wholly to disinclination, so that ye leave one of them as it were in suspense; if ye come to an understanding, and fear God, then, verily, God is Forgiving, Merciful..."
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 4 - Women)

According to the first quote above, a precondition to marrying more than one is that he trat them all eqitably. yet in the second quote it sayd that he will not have it at all in his power to do so. So it's essentially a subtle way of saying that a Muslim is allowed to marry no more than one wife at a time. Though granted should he violate that rule, then further on in the same paragraph he's advized to keep his wives. So essentially it's saying: Don't marry more than one wife, but if you've broken that rule, or married them before becoming Muslim or whatever the case may be, then keep them and accept responsibility for them.​

So there can in fact be alternative understandings of the Qur'an.

Now of course regardless of how one may understand the Qur'an, from a political stand pont what matters is how goverments, not individuals, understand the Qur'an. And if they insist that polygamy must be allowed, then that could be a tough one for us to deal with.

The case for Canadian Citizens engaging in polygamy on foreign soil then having it recognized in Canada is not credible - Reason people would go to such countries that permit it then they could return to Canada - It is one or the other - Permitted or Not

Think of the Immigration conundrum - Married - then marries 3 wives from his country of origin - they are then granted Citizenship - He then divorces 3 of them - They then marry again from their country of origin - He the person they marry then is granted citizenship - he then marries 3 more from his country of origin. Think on that one - And it would all be legal.

Well, if people marry more than one based on some religious belief, considering that pretty well all religiouns strongly discourage divorce, then I'd imagine such couples are less likely to divorce in the first place. But I do see the point. One possibility I could see would be that recognizing the marriage and immigration could be two different things. In other words, eah wife would still have to pass all the required tests to become a citizen like anyone else. That would mean a change to the system, but then again a person who goes abroad to marry should accept the consequences.

As to agreements - You would want other countries to Recognize Canadian Law - Now that would not fly very well in those countries.

That's why they'd be AGREEMENTS< nothing imposed. We could try to limit it to Canadian citizens only, and if they disagree, well then so be it.

 

[taxslave]

Not being religious I don't care much one way or the other as long as the Canadian taxpayer is not supporting any of them and little girls are not forced into marriage with a pedophile. Which appears to be the case in Bountiful.
Watched a supposed reality show on polygamy a few weeks ago. After that I see no reason to want more than one wife if that many. The poor guy has four honey do lists, no time to enjoy a bunch of naked women and no space of his own.

 

[Goober]

Not being religious I don't care much one way or the other as long as the Canadian taxpayer is not supporting any of them and little girls are not forced into marriage with a pedophile. Which appears to be the case in Bountiful.
Watched a supposed reality show on polygamy a few weeks ago. After that I see no reason to want more than one wife if that many. The poor guy has four honey do lists, no time to enjoy a bunch of naked women and no space of his own.

Problem is that the taxpayer does support this - Bountifull gets a load of Govt Money.

 

[Machjo]

Oh, and another point to make. Even if we conclude that the Qur'an permits polygamous marriage, it's still clear that it certainly does not encourage it. That being the case, for Canada to ban polygamy therefore does not conflict with Islam in the least. If anything, it helps Muslim Canadians to live up to a higher standard of their religion seeing that at the very least we can agree that the Qur'an does not encourage polygamy.

As for the Christian Faith, though there is no explicit ban on polygamy in the New Testament, nowhere in their does it make polygamy obligatory. Add to that that there are pasages hnting at a preference towards monogamy. Neither does the Old Testament make polygamy obligatory. It merely permits it. So I don't see how prohibiting polygamous marriages violates anyone's freedom of religion.

Not being religious I don't care much one way or the other as long as the Canadian taxpayer is not supporting any of them and little girls are not forced into marriage with a pedophile. Which appears to be the case in Bountiful.
Watched a supposed reality show on polygamy a few weeks ago. After that I see no reason to want more than one wife if that many. The poor guy has four honey do lists, no time to enjoy a bunch of naked women and no space of his own.

I don't pity the guy one bit. When he first went into it, he probably though it would be so much fun. Serves him right. He should have thought about that before. You want to marry 10 wives? Then you take the responsibility that goes along with it.

 

[Goober]

Oh, and another point to make. Even if we conclude that the Qur'an permits polygamous marriage, it's still clear that it certainly does not encourage it. That being the case, for Canada to ban polygamy therefore does not conflict with Islam in the least. If anything, it helps Muslim Canadians to live up to a higher standard of their religion seeing that at the very least we can agree that the Qur'an does not encourage polygamy.

As for the Christian Faith, though there is no explicit ban on polygamy in the New Testament, nowhere in their does it make polygamy obligatory. Add to that that there are pasages hnting at a preference towards monogamy. Neither does the Old Testament make polygamy obligatory. It merely permits it. So I don't see how prohibiting polygamous marriages violates anyone's freedom of religion.

Ah as we all know you never can tell what the Courts will decide.

 

[Machjo]

As for paedophilia, there definitely has to be a minimum age.

Problem is that the taxpayer does support this - Bountifull gets a load of Govt Money.

In what sense? If you're referring to education money, then I can fully agree with that. If however the parents are getting cash directly from the government, that's a whole different ballgame. So, which are you referring to?

I think the government and society should stay the hell out of other peoples bedroom.

Even to protect people from harm and exploitation? Paedophilia can occur in bedrooms too you know.

 

[Goober]

As for paedophilia, there definitely has to be a minimum age.



In what sense? If you're referring to education money, then I can fully agree with that. If however the parents are getting cash directly from the government, that's a whole different ballgame. So, which are you referring to?



Even to protect people from harm and exploitation? Paedophilia can occur in bedrooms too you know.

I do not have time tonight but i will try to get you some info on that. OK?

 

[FiveParadox]

My opinion on the issue of polygamy is conflicted.

On the one hand, polygamy in the most basic of senses seems, to me, to be entirely an issue of religious preferences that should, on the surface at any rate, be protected and saved under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A polygamous take on currently-existing civil rights surrounding marriage would be a bit of an administrative nightmare, but it would certainly be something that our governing institutions could find some solutions for.

The issue here is not with the most basic definition of polygamy, though, I would suggest; I argue that the issue, here, is the several perceived "side-effects" of polygamy. These "side-effects", though, can readily be dealt with under existing sections of the Criminal Code (for example, the exploitation or abuse of children). So long as a polygamous union can exist without the negative elements that they are often associated with, what is so wrong at the fundamental level of, simply, multiple parties entered into the same civil marriage?

As to whether s. 33 of the Charter (the ominous notwithstanding clause) should be invoked, I am not a fan of the clause ever being invoked, except in the case of some as-yet-undefined national emergency. The use of this clause is an express declaration, by the Parliament of Canada, that it knows about and consents to, and in fact enacts, the trampling of the fundamental freedoms of citizens. This is in nearly all cases, in my view, unacceptable--to overturn a decision from the bench that a right or freedom has been violated, using the notwithstanding clause, is unthinkable.

 

[#juan]

If one man has a sexual relationship with one woman and things fall apart, hopefully the two ex-partners can make sure the children, if any, are looked after. What happens if it is a polygamous situation with five wives and 11 children? Who looks after the children? The government? In my humble opinion we don't need to add more problems. We have enough already.

 

[Bar Sinister]

A thread similar to this one was posted a few months back. It seemed to me in that post several problems of a polygamous society were pointed out. The first was that when one man is allowed more than one wife then other men are condemned to have no wives. This problem is accentuated when a few men are allowed three, four, or even more wives. This problem is clearly illustrated in some Muslim societies and in the Christian communities in BC and other parts of Canada and the US, and can have severe societal consequences.

The second is that many of these polygamous societies engage in what is considered the clear exploitation of of young women and girls with marriages being forced on girls who have barely reached puberty.

Of course it is the right of women of mature age to associate with one man if they so choose (Think Hugh Hefner here), but they are also free to leave the relationship if they so choose. In many polygamous societies the women trapped into these relationships are far from being free to leave.

There is no simple solution to the question, but it would seem that institutionalizing polygamy as is it practiced in Muslim societies or places like Bountiful, BC is probably not a very good idea.

 

[Ariadne]

Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide

What are your thoughts on thisDoes it breech a person's religious rights under the CharterAre you for or against thisBC Supreme Court will render a decision - Either way a decision will be appealed to the SCOCIf the SCOC rules in favor of the right to Practice Polygamy -

Do you think that the Not Withstanding Clause be invoked?


http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/20/court-to-decide-if-polygamy-laws-conflict-with-rights-charter/

[URL="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-court-to-decide-whether-polygamy-is-a-protected-religious-practice/article1807806/"]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-court-to-decide-whether-polygamy-is-a-protected-religious-practice/article1807806/[/URL]

Seems to me the entire issue begs the question. First, it has to be establised that Mormonism is a religion, and then the religious beliefs can be examined. Since Mormonism is a cult, and not a religion, it's irrelevant whether this practice of polygamy can be justified through religion in Canada. I suppose that argument would cause an uproar in the bountiful Mormon community, but it would the argument I would make - if I were in a position to make an argument.

 

[Dilettante]

Seems that the problem is really that the decision/discussion is encased in a religious, or more specifically, freedom of religion framework. The folks that are currently contesting the status quo are doing it based on religious freedom and it would seem that the 2nd most likely group to do so (traditional Muslims) would also do so on that basis. However, in what is or should be a secular society, we should really be making these types of decisions based on an analysis of personal freedom (for all citizens regardless of religion)vs. potential harm.

Lets leave the religious aspect out of it.

Now polygamy and polyandry when all parties are fully aware and consenting ADULTS seems quite fair and harmless (at least as much so as any marriage) to all parties involved. Therefore it seems hard to find criteria on which to base its illegality. Ceremonies would have to be nondenominational (civil)or performed by religious institutions who support it.

Canadian law (when properly applied)is stringent enough to provide protection for minors and in cases where the relationship is unequal with some tweaks. Certainly polygamy where one spouse is unaware (the travelling salesman with 2 families completely unknown to one another) or where there is evidence of coercion should still remain illegal and prosecutable. We might even want to tweak the law to provide additional protection in this area.

And finally, I highly doubt that this type of relationship will suddenly jump in popularity to the point where it becomes mainstream just because we make it legal. Lets face it, those who would find this type of relationship personally unacceptable are the vast majority but they really have no reason to enforce their views/beliefs on the minority who live happy fulfilling lives in this manner.

 

[Ariadne]

At some point, like today, Canada should explain to newcomers that Canada has a culture, and a family tradition ... and change will come internally, not externally. People that value this culture, beliefs, and way of life are welcome. Those that want a different lifestyle for themselves, one that they would impose on others, should probably seek another country of residence. There is a limit to political correctioness (sometimes known as compromise).

If the law should be corrected to include the possibility that one man can have 2 or 3 wives, then it should also be corrected to include the possibility that one woman can have 2 or 3 husbands. In the event that the woman is the primary breadwinner, and she has three husbands, the civil litigation would be a monster .. a financial mess. I don't think it's a wise decision for Canada.

As for people taking advantage of the opportunity, I wouldn't be surprised if people didn't arrange financial polygamy, like gay marriage loopholes, and friend marriage petitions.

 

[Dilettante]

The thing is, although not numerous, there are people who did not immigrate to Canada who subscribe to this life choice so we can't simply write it off as an imported custom. Even if the lifestyle was only present in certain immigrant populations the fact that wasn't a part of "Canadian culture" should not be enough on its own to justify disallowing it.

I suspect most on this thread are using the term polygamy for ease of communication but certainly polyandry receiving the same legal consideration should go without saying.

I'm sure the whole thing would make for some interesting divorces, but hey, divorces from monogamous marriages are already so entertaining that they televise it on daytime TV.

 

[Spade]

Polygamy in Canada is essentially a Latter-Day Saints' (Mormon) phenomenon imported from the States. However, the Bible does not prohibit polygamy. So, saying it is anti Christian or anti-Jewish is nonsense.

Personally, the best argument against polygamy is secular. Who, in his right mind, would want more than one back-seat driver in his vehicle?

 

[Dilettante]

Polygamy in Canada is essentially a Latter-Day Saints' (Mormon) phenomenon imported from the States. However, the Bible does not prohibit polygamy. So, saying it is anti Christian or anti-Jewish is nonsense.

Personally, the best argument against polygamy is secular. Who, in his right mind, would want more than one back-seat driver in his vehicle?

It really is the best example of "careful what you wish for" you could ever find. ;-)